APOCALYPSE or FAIRY TALE?

[Bob Michael]

APOCALYPSE or FAIRY TALE?

What is going to happen?

We all know the picture of the world. Chinese demography has just reached a billion - a thousand million men. Every year India has twelve million more babies. A geometrical progression. No human means can stop this tidal wave. I saw entire Himalayan ranges stripped of their trees - in twenty years. It gives you the shivers. Who speaks of Attila? The entire earth is full of little Attilas - there is no knowing whether they are men or something else disguised in a man's skin.

That may be the true question: the earth is full of beings that are not men. They are goats, rats or rabbits, but not men. They may have science, democracy or religion, but they are not men. They have very ingenious digestive tracts. No species is more fake. A rat is what it is, without pretense. Man is not what he is - he pretends a lot of things, with a Bible in his hand and a tie around his neck. Man and falsehood hold together.

In other words we are not yet men.

Our falsehood is exploding in our faces. There is no other phenomenon. Man is becoming what he is, and what is not will go out of reality - how?

That they will go out is beyond doubt.

But there are millions and millions of fakers, and falsehood is so closely intermingled with truth that we do not really know how it is divinely possible (divinely, for humanly) to untangle this mixture without extirpating the good along with the bad. Then, if we take a close look, we realize that the best is no better than the worst: it is the same quagmire of 'something' ...which is not what it is, neither in the worst nor in the best. Evolutionally speaking, there is a certain cellular aggregate - neither good nor bad - which has put on intellect, philosophy, microscopes, religion, and a certain number of other ingredients of which we may think highly or not, but what we think is not definitely important for the species, any more than the gospels or misdeeds of small fishes were for the emergence of mammals. So the 'separation of the righteous', goodness, wherever are those righteous?

('The Mind of The Cells' - Satprem [Bernard Enginger])

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That may be the true question: the earth is full of beings that are not men.

I agree. Actually whenever someone tries to raise the issue of becoming more "human", or to put a "human face" on elements of society, the whole personal and interpersonal obsession, the opposite becomes clear rather quickly: we see mass reflexes, animal-type behavior, cheap tricks, commercial media-management, button-pushing, endless self-centered moo-ing, and so on.

Humanity has grown a false notion of what it is, to be human, and because of that also likely a more or less warped concept of life, death and value.

The question to you, Bob, is then: could you describe further what human is supposed to be, or how he's supposed to act or reflect as to get the label "man", "human" or "righteous"?

[Bob Michael]

The question to you, Bob, is then: could you describe further what human is supposed to be, or how he's supposed to act or reflect as to get the label "man", "human" or "righteous"?

That's quite a challenging question, Diebert. I still have trouble putting my thoughts and feelings into words. Somewhere I have an article on genuine manhood which I feel is excellant and very reflective of my own views. I'll try to dig it out if I can find it and post it. However I will say that to be a man is to genuinely and fully love, and when one is in fact a living embodiment of love there are immense feelings of goodness, righteousness, freshness, and aliveness that are quite indescribable. And also that in retrospect for much of my life I blindly followed the herd and consequently failed miserably to qualify for genuine manhood and eventually came to suffer tremendously as a result. That suffering, also in retrospect, being a 'call' to grow up, learn to walk fully upright, and even if the whole world hates me, or else die. And obviously I'm still living. Living in a manner I never thought possible. Though finding very, very few, if any, others living similarly.

[Bob Michael]

This isn't the article on manhood I had in mind, though I find it an equally excellant one. I'll continue to try and find the one I originally had in mind.

The Qualities of the 'NEW MAN' by Erich Fromm

1. Willingness to give up all forms of having, in order to fully be.

2. Security, sense of identity, and confidence based on faith in
what one is, on one's need for relatedness, interest, love,
solidarity with the world around one, instead of on one's desire
to have, to possess, to control the world, and thus become
the slave of one's possessions.

3. Acceptance of the fact that nobody and nothing outside oneself
give meaning to life, but that this radical independence and no-
thingness can become the condition for the fullest activity
devoted to caring and sharing.

4. Being fully present where one is.

5. Joy that comes from giving and sharing, not from hoarding and
exploiting.

6. Love and respect for life in all its manifestations, in the
knowledge that not things, power, all that is dead, but life and
everything that pertains to its growth are sacred.

7. Trying to reduce greed, hate, and illusions as much as one is
capable.

8. Living without worshiping idols and without illusions, because
one has reached a state that does not require illusions.

9. Developing one's capacity for love, together with one's capacity
for critical, unsentimental thought.

10. Shedding one's narcissism and accepting the tragic limitations
inherent in human existence.

11. Making full growth of oneself and of one's fellow beings the
supreme goal of living.

12. Knowing that to reach this goal, discipline and respect for
reality are necessary.

13. Knowing, also, that no growth is healthy that does not occur in a
structure, but knowing, too, the difference between structure as
an attribute of life and "order" as an attribute of no-life, of
the dead.

14. Developing one's imagination, not as an escape from intolerable
circumstances but as the anticipation of real possibilities, as a
means to do away with intolerable circumstances.

15. Not deceiving others, but also not being deceived by others; one
may be called innocent, but not naive.

16. Knowing oneself, not only the self one knows, but also the self
one does not know-even though one has a slumbering knowledge of
what one does not know.

17. Sensing one's oneness with all life, hence giving up the aim of
conquering nature, subduing it, exploiting it, raping it, but
trying, rather, to understand and cooperate with nature.

18. Freedom that is not arbitraryness but the possibility to be
oneself, not as a bundle of greedy desires, but as a delicately
balanced structure that at any moment is confronted with the
alternative of growth or decay, life or death.

19. Knowing that evil and destructiveness are necessary consequences
of failure to grow.

20. Knowing that only a few have reached perfection in all these
qualities, but being without the ambition to "reach the goal," in
the knowledge that such ambition is only another form of greed,
of having.

21. Happiness in the process of ever growing aliveness, whatever the
furthest point is that fate permits one to reach, for living as
fully as one can is so satisfactory that the concern for what
one might or might not attain has little chance to develop.

[Carmel]

Thanks for posting that, Bob. Fromm has always been one of my favorites. He had some interesting insights in the human condition and seemed to have a genuine compassion for humanity. A member named Animus started a thread on him in the Worldly matters section of this forum, if you're interested.

[Bob Michael]

Thanks for posting that, Bob. Fromm has always been one of my favorites. He had some interesting insights in the human condition and seemed to have a genuine compassion for humanity. A member named Animus started a thread on him in the Worldly matters section of this forum, if you're interested.

Yes, I agree regarding Fromm. Yet bright, insightful, and compassionate as he was, I feel he failed to see the full picture regarding the human dilemma, as was the same case with virtually all of the spiritual forerunners.

[Carmel]

Bob:
Yes, I agree regarding Fromm. Yet bright, insightful, and compassionate as he was, I feel he failed to see the full picture regarding the human dilemma, as was the same case with virtually all of the spiritual forerunners.

Carmel:
virtually all?

Should I infer from that some spiritual forefunners didn't fail? May I ask whom you think succeded and more importantly, why you think they were successful?

[Blair]

Faery Tale.

[Kelly Jones]

However I will say that to be a man is to genuinely and fully love, and when one is in fact a living embodiment of love there are immense feelings of goodness, righteousness, freshness, and aliveness that are quite indescribable.

By "love", do you mean what's described in this short essay?



I apologise for this long response, but Fromm's piece was overly long to start with....

1. Willingness to give up all forms of having, in order to fully be.

That sounds like "being" is the new thing to have.

2. Security, sense of identity, and confidence based on faith in what one is, on one's need for relatedness, interest, love, solidarity with the world around one, instead of on one's desire to have, to possess, to control the world, and thus become the slave of one's possessions.

The need for relatedness et cet. sounds odd to me, since it is already the case. It's like a fish needing water, when it's already fully immersed in the ocean.

3. Acceptance of the fact that nobody and nothing outside oneself give meaning to life, but that this radical independence and no-thingness can become the condition for the fullest activity devoted to caring and sharing.

Isn't the latter Fromm's attempt to give meaning to [his] life?

4. Being fully present where one is.

But even when making plans for the future, or reminiscing about the past, one is still fully in the present. Perhaps he meant, be as conscious as possible, whatever you are engaged in.

5. Joy that comes from giving and sharing, not from hoarding and exploiting.

To me, this sounds like fear of being regarded as an individual who doesn't emotionally bond with people. Being regarded as selfish and unhelpful, because of not acting up to the widespread delusion that compassion is at all spiritual.

6. Love and respect for life in all its manifestations, in the knowledge that not things, power, all that is dead, but life and everything that pertains to its growth are sacred.

This makes no sense. Life and death are inseparable, and "things" and "power" are included in "everything that pertains to [life's] growth". Power is a part of life's growth, as in the power of a tree to break through a rock to find moisture and nutrients.

7. Trying to reduce greed, hate, and illusions as much as one is capable.

This sounds reasonable.

8. Living without worshiping idols and without illusions, because one has reached a state that does not require illusions.

Even love, happiness, giving and caring, etc.?

9. Developing one's capacity for love, together with one's capacity for critical, unsentimental thought.

If love means wisdom, i.e. enlightenment based on reason, then these two go hand-in-hand. But my suspicion is that love is the "sharing and giving" sentiment coupled with emotional warmth and blissful feelings, resulting in a complete separation from criticality and unsentimentality.

10. Shedding one's narcissism and accepting the tragic limitations inherent in human existence.

I don't think human existence's limitations are tragic in the slightest. I don't think they're comic either. They're just what they are.

11. Making full growth of oneself and of one's fellow beings the supreme goal of living.

This is too vague. He mentioned above that life grows, but then he wanted to avoid death (on which all life relies). So I don't see how he could ever reach this goal.

12. Knowing that to reach this goal, discipline and respect for reality are necessary.

What about truth and reason instead? Or what about respect for the emptiness of reality?

13. Knowing, also, that no growth is healthy that does not occur in a structure, but knowing, too, the difference between structure as
an attribute of life and "order" as an attribute of no-life, of the dead.

I think his lack of understanding about the intertwining reality of life-and-death forces him to find arbitrary notions to which he can wrangle some kind of distinction. Structure vs. order!

14. Developing one's imagination, not as an escape from intolerable circumstances but as the anticipation of real possibilities, as a means to do away with intolerable circumstances.

That's internally contradictory.

15. Not deceiving others, but also not being deceived by others; one may be called innocent, but not naive.

It's impossible not to be deceived by others if others lie unknowingly, or have no interest in the truth. One shouldn't be afraid of this. It can be a very helpful occasion for learning if one presents the consequences of other's lies on one's life: it's a presentation of cause and effect.

16. Knowing oneself, not only the self one knows, but also the self one does not know-even though one has a slumbering knowledge of what one does not know.

That's internally contradictory. I think he meant, to know the self one hasn't yet come to know.

17. Sensing one's oneness with all life, hence giving up the aim of conquering nature, subduing it, exploiting it, raping it, but trying, rather, to understand and cooperate with nature.

I think he's getting overly feminine and sentimental here. One's true existence can include a homicidal madman, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't subdue them, to avoid them harming others and themselves. I don't think it's wise to cooperate with nature when it takes such a form.

18. Freedom that is not arbitraryness but the possibility to be oneself, not as a bundle of greedy desires, but as a delicately balanced structure that at any moment is confronted with the alternative of growth or decay, life or death.

This sounds nebulous also. One is already free, and there is no "possibility" about it. Perhaps he means, for one who is hemmed in by their delusions, they should remember the freedom of causation to change at any moment to drop the burning desires.

I don't see that growth or decay, life or death, are alternatives, but an intertwined dynamic.

19. Knowing that evil and destructiveness are necessary consequences of failure to grow.

But grow how? And destruction is a part of growth, a co-relative of creation.

20. Knowing that only a few have reached perfection in all these qualities, but being without the ambition to "reach the goal," in the knowledge that such ambition is only another form of greed, of having.

Now he has fallen straight into the contradiction mentioned earlier. That is, that wanting being rather than having is yet another kind of having. So he's fallen into trying to hold onto ambition as well as non-ambition, having realised that ambition and greed are essentially psychologically the same.

He could have avoided this problem by focussing on making the goal emptiness, which automatically empties ambition.

21. Happiness in the process of ever growing aliveness, whatever the furthest point is that fate permits one to reach, for living as fully as one can is so satisfactory that the concern for what one might or might not attain has little chance to develop.

Okay. I have now concluded that Fromm has emitted a load of sentimental claptrap, actually.


Kelly

[Bob Michael]

Kelly, you exemplify to me just how terribly lost and un-self-knowing the human species is. Here's another article on Manhood for you to drag into the mud of cold, callous, and unfeeling logic, analogies, rationalism, and intellect. Enjoy your 'self' in the doing, my friend. My joy and heartfelt feelings of goodness spring forth from the offering of these and other things.

THE WORLD NEEDS MEN . . .

. . . who cannot be bought;

. . . whose word is their bond;

. . . who put character above wealth;

. . . who are larger than their vocations;

. . . who do not hesitate to take chances;

. . . who will not lose their identity in a
crowd;

. . . who will be as honest in small things
as in great things;

. . . who will make no compromise with
wrong;

. . . whose ambitions are not confined to
their own selfish desires;

. . . who will not say they do it "because
everybody else does it;"

. . . who are true to their friends through
good report and evil report, in adversity
as well as in prosperity;

. . . who do not believe that shrewdness
and cunning are the best qualities for
winning success;

. . . who are not ashamed to stand for the
truth when it is unpopular;

. . . who can say "no" with emphasis,
although the rest of the world say
"yes."

God, make me this kind of man.

-Leonard Wagner

[Bob Michael]

Should I infer from that some spiritual forefunners didn't fail? May I ask whom you think succeded and more importantly, why you think they were successful?

There may have been some 'silent ones' here and there who succeeded in setting some of their fellows free, though I doubt that they knew the nature of the human dilemma.

[jufa]

Men spend their lives setting up strawmen that they can knock down. As here in this thread, men see themselves as knights of the round table going out to slay imaginary dragons [ego's and beliefs which they acknowledge and believe to be their reality analyzed]. From their outer objective visions of recognitions and inner subjective feelings of what has been imprinted upon the walls of their souls and elevated up from their sub-conscious minds to their conscious awareness, on into their imagination and finalized thought conclusions, they reach the wall of destruction which the human mind knows only of. So as here, apocalypse or fairy tales become overpowering in their imagination.

Men tend to overlook the reality that all which came to be, came to be before them. They had nothing to do with the principles and patterns of evolution which the Source of creation has provided to rectify Itself from the chao of disordered thoughts of man's arrogance which caused and have caused what appears to be the destruction of himself, thus his world. Ha, what a joke man is to himself in believing he can change or alter the path of expansion, when he does not know causation of anything of creation, what expansion means, let alone himself.

If man is the dragon in the sense of being "only human," then it must be considered that all which man has sat in motion can be nothing other than his children, which are his dragons of apocalypse or fairy tales of myth and metaphors he has sat upon the world by his thinking and continous thought pattern which manifest as his thought children moving in the material world of matter.

And just as some men release upon the world dragons of chao, their are some men who "as the cold of the snow in the time of harvest, so is the faithful messenger of those who send him, for he refreshes the soul of his masters" by retreating into the silence of self for the allowance of the Spirit of life to take his soul in marriage so that the principles and patterns life offers will indeed allow him to become one in harmony of living in the knowledge he has not hindered, nor have been a hinderance in his odyssey of maintaining the world of infinitestimal reality of creation.

"Judge not by appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Who has this ability when thinking they are only intellectual human creatures?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Bob Michael]

Oh how the darkness hateth the light. And how cunning and clever it can be in its attacks. Little has changed since the beginning of time.

[jufa]

Oh how the darkness hateth the light. And how cunning and clever it can be in its attacks. Little has changed since the beginning of time.

"In the land of the blind, a one eyed man is king."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

Oh how the Darkness disguiseth itself as the Light, and Unrighteosness itself as Righteousness, forever seeking to turn the Joy of the Lord which resideth in men's hearts into Despair and Fear.

[Carmel]

Oh how the darkness hateth the light. And how cunning and clever it can be in its attacks. Little has changed since the beginning of time.

Carmel:
yes...
--

ok, Bob, since you like Fromm, here's one for your consideration, a basic wiki synpopsis of his views from his book "Escape from Freedom": (I usually prefer direct quotes, may seek some out later.)

"Fromm believed that freedom was an aspect of human nature that we either embrace or escape. He observed that embracing our freedom of will was healthy, whereas escaping freedom through the use of escape mechanisms was the root of psychological conflicts. Fromm outlined three of the most common escape mechanisms: automaton conformity, authoritarianism, and destructiveness. Automaton conformity is changing one's ideal self to conform to a perception of society's preferred type of personality, losing one's true self in the process. Automaton conformity displaces the burden of choice from self to society. Authoritarianism is giving control of oneself to another. By submitting one's freedom to someone else, this act removes the freedom of choice almost entirely. Lastly, destructiveness is any process which attempts to eliminate others or the world as a whole, all to escape freedom. Fromm said that "the destruction of the world is the last, almost desperate attempt to save myself from being crushed by it" (1941)."

Carmel:
With all due respect, Bob, I can't help but wonder if on some psychological level you're escaping your own freedom by focusing your attention on "the destruction of the world", Armegeddon etc. I mean no offense by this, but am just curious as to your opinion of Fromm's analysis, all of it, but particularly his comments regarding using destructiveness as a mechanism for escaping one's own freedom.

[Pam Seeback]

Oh how the darkness hateth the light. And how cunning and clever it can be in its attacks. Little has changed since the beginning of time.

You, Bob Michael, were there at the beginning of time so that you can tell us, without arousing a shadow of good and evil relativity in your mind and in my mind, what darkness is and what light is?

[Kelly Jones]

Bob,

I noticed in another thread that you viewed knowledge of the Infinite to be less helpful than a man's understanding himself. Probably an important key here, in explaining why you think I'm "terribly lost and un-self-knowing", a person you regard as "drag[ging] into the mud of cold, callous, and unfeeling logic, analogies, rationalism, and intellect" ideas on manhood that you value.

You seem to believe strongly in love and self-existence, until you're not willing to explore them with a "critical, unsentimental eye" (Fromm). That's all I was asking. Can't you engage in a cool-headed, equanimous investigation into the nature of love? Aren't you willing to explore? Or is love a sacred cow you won't analyse?

If you're willing to put love itself on a lower ranking than truthfulness and self-awareness, willing even to examine its nature and exactly why you're drawn to it, then perhaps you'd be willing to think of this:

To understand oneself, the influences and causes surely are important factors, are they not? What are you, if not the causes that make you? For instance, the earth and your local environment giving life to you, your ancestors and teachers and mentors giving reality to your psychology and personality, and let's not forget your own past life (your own past decisions and behaviours) in shaping your ideational habits and value-priorities. What are you, the man, if not a thing given its reality by infinite causal processes?

Knowledge of the Infinite is vital to understanding oneself. It shows everything in the true perspective - the largest, the smallest, the abstract, the physical, the psychological, the social, the individual. It is like putting spectacles on and seeing clearly for the first time.

I'll agree with you that this is a cold, logical realm. And yet it is not a dead, unfeeling world - but rather full of the glorious freedom of living in truth.


.

[Carmel]

Kelly,

...just a quick interjection to to elaborate briefly on Fromm's views on "love". He used the word in a somewhat different capacity than how it is typically used. He was well aware of the pitfalls of emotionalism and "love".

from wiki:

"Fromm considered love to be an interpersonal creative capacity rather than an emotion, and he distinguished this creative capacity from what he considered to be various forms of narcissistic neuroses and sado-masochistic tendencies that are commonly held out as proof of "true love." Indeed, Fromm viewed the experience of "falling in love" as evidence of one's failure to understand the true nature of love, which he believed always had the common elements of care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge."
--
That said, I'm not sure if Bob is using the word "love" in this same context or not.

[Kelly Jones]

Thanks, Carmel. Well, I have a hunch Bob means something like that. So let's explore it further. How can one best show care, and respect? What is the highest form of responsibility, and the highest knowledge?

It's struck me that Fromm meant (and Bob too, perhaps) consideration for other humans' needs, and treating them with good will and friendship. The aim of it would be theoretically to help them to function to their best. But this begs the question on what is "best"? Isn't this wisdom?

Lao Tzu said true wisdom (of the Infinite, not worldly wisdom) is lost at the level Fromm espouses:

When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise.
When wisdom and intelligence are born,
The great pretence begins.

When there is no peace within the family,
Filial piety and devotion arise.
When the country is confused and in chaos,
Loyal ministers appear.

Therefore when the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Happiness is rooted in misery.
Misery lurks beneath happiness.
Who knows what the future holds?
There is no honesty.
Honesty becomes dishonest.
Goodness becomes witchcraft.
Man's bewitchment lasts for a long time.

Truthful words are not beautiful.
Beautiful words are not truthful.

.

[Carmel]

Thanks for the Lao Tzu quotes, but I think I'll step aside and let you and Bob hash this one out...

[jupiviv]

Therefore when the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.

It'll be interesting to see how different people interpret this. To my mind, this looks like a brilliant insight into human psychology. When perfect realisation(the Tao) is "lost", we strive to become perfect once more, thus morality or "goodness". When we're not even that conscious, we want to be good in the eyes of others(kindness) to compensate for our own lack of genuine goodness. When even that is lost, we create an external system of laws(justice) which govern our and others' actions, to compensate for our lack of the ability to even know what being moral truly means. This is the birth of social ethics - what Nietzsche spoke against in his books. When even this is lost, we become near akin to animals, doing whatever we are conditioned to do without thinking.

To sort of tie this in with the topic at hand - isn't modern society a lot like the "ritual" stage. People no longer question their desires and emotions, and whatever intellectual activity they indulge in is just like a "ritual" - a mindless act of doing something because it will lead to something we want(which is itself a mindless, thoughtless desire). Academics think because they are paid to do so, artists paint, write and sing because they want to become rich and famous, doctors and surgeons save lives because it pays(a lot) to do so.

The whole idea of doing something for its own sake is completely lost to society as a whole. Everything is just a means to something else, and therefore nothing has any value, and there is no true purpose. Perhaps this is why the idea of "the end justifies the means" is so commonly accepted nowadays. The end can never justify the means, because that would make the end itself into a means.

[Kelly Jones]

Excellent analysis, Jupta.

Bukowski in one poem:

as
the
spirit
wanes
the
form
appears


Conversely, the more "tribal" and unconscious, the more stepping-stones come in useful. That means, promoting ideals, masculine psychology, highly logical thinking, and the like. They're still all illusions, but the unconscious person isn't ready to perceive that yet. So they need them.

On one hand, destroying Fromm's list of key ideals could be a mistaken thing to do, if the audience intended to hear them is really in that low grade animal state. But, this is the Genius Forum, and those ideals are demoralising for people in the genius realms.....


.

[Blair]

Religion poisons everything - Hitchens

[Carmel]

Religious hypocrites poison everything.